Damayanti Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No. 23910 of 2024

Damayanti Khuntia …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. P.R.Chhatoi, Advocate -Versus - State Of Odisha & Ors …. Opposite Parties Represented by AGA

¶4

WP(C) No. 27948 of 2024

¶5

Subhashree Pandi @ … Petitioner Subhasree Pandi . Represented by

¶6

. Represented by Mr. A.K.Biswal, Advocate

¶7

-Versus -

¶8

State Of Odisha Opposite Party …. Represented by AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_

09.01.2025

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Both these writ applications arise out of the same order passed by the Sub-Collector, Puri. Both the writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶16

The petitioner, Damayanti Khuntia (W.P.(C). No. 23910 of 2024) was engaged as Anganwadi worker being selected by the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

selection committee. Her selection was challenged by Subhashree Pandi (W.P.(C). No. 27948 of 2024) in Anganwadi appeal No. 01 of 2023 before the ADM, Puri. The challenge was on the ground that Damayanti Khuntia had practiced fraud and obtained a Prathama certificate, utilizing which she had applied and was ultimately selected. After going through the contentions raised, the ADM remitted the matter to the Sub-Collector, being the Chairman of the selection committee with direction to enquire into the matter and to obtain clarification from the competent authority on applicability of equivalent matriculation certificate. The SubCollector was directed to take appropriate action as per clarification received. Pursuant to such direction, the Sub-Collector, Puri, as per order dated 17.09.2024 passed in Anganwadi Worker Misc. Case No. 1 to 2024, held that the certificate submitted by Damayanti Khuntia is not equivalent to Prathama examination with that of CHSE examination of BSE, Odisha. As such, he directed the CDPO, Brahmagiri to disengage her and to issue fresh notification to fill up the vacancy. Damayanti Khuntia (W.P.(C) No. 23910 of 2024) challenges the said order on the ground that the same was passed on misreading of the clarification issued by the Board of Secondary Education. Subhashree Pandi (W.P.(C). No. 27948 of 2024) challenges the said order on the ground that having held that Damayanti Khuntia was not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker, she should have been engaged without directing the CDPO to issue fresh notification.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the order of the

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Sub-Collector emanates from the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 07.11.2023 in Anganwadi Appeal No. 1 of 2023. As already stated, the matter was remitted to the Sub-Collector for causing inquiry and to pass order basing thereon. The Sub-Collector has acted in pursuance of such directions and passed an order. If the parties are aggrieved, then the legal recourse available would be to challenge the same by filing appeal afresh. Instead of invoking the appellate jurisdiction, they have straightway approached to this Court in the above writ application. The dispute is basically factual in nature as allegations of fraud has been levelled by one candidate against the other. A positive finding in this regard is required to be arrived at by the appropriate authority on the basis of materials/ evidence to be adduced by the parties. It goes without saying that this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction would not ordinarily enter into determination of any factual controversy. It would, therefore, be proper for the parties to approach the Appellate Authority by filling appeal as provided in the guidelines.

¶22

Both the writ applications are therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the parties to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority within three weeks from today. If such appeal is preferred along with petitions for condonation of delay, said petitions shall be considered favorably having regard to the fact that both the petitioners, rightly or wrongly, had approached this Court and the matter remained pending till today. The appeals to be filed by the petitioners shall be disposed of in accordance with law, as early as possible.

¶23